This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blu-ray, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Blu-ray Disc on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

I think it's high-past time we cleaned up the lead. It has many issues including inline references, content that doesn't exist in the body of the article, and absolutely zero mention of the console's reception. My goal here is to make this a more interesting introduction that summarizes the article's most important aspects while leaving out details that are unnecessary in the lead (per MOS:LEAD).

Here is a proposed update: New
Here is the current (at the time of this posting): Current

If you have any issues with the proposal, or if you see any other areas that need to be modified, please let me know. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I found your edit summary ("clean up") to be somewhat misrepresentative of your actual edit. You not only altered a paragraph that had been carefully agreed upon by a number of editors here on the talk page, but you also deleted perfectly referenced information and replaced it with unsourced text. For example, the lede section previously summarised PS4's technical aspects in the following way...

The PlayStation 4's GPU can perform 1.843 teraflops.[1] Sony calls the PlayStation 4 "the world's most powerful console"[2] and, speaking to Edge magazine, numerous game developers described the performance difference between the PS4 and Xbox One as "'significant' and 'obvious'".[3]

Edge magazine is a high quality source. You'd be hard-pressed to find one better. Its editors spoke with "multiple high-level game development sources" who all described PS4 as having a "significant" power advantage. This paragraph was deleted and replaced with...

Prior to its release, the PlayStation 4 received widespread praise for engineering choices that went into the design, including high-end graphics memory that gave the console a slight edge over the competition in terms of performance capabilities. The PS4 was well-received by critics and led global sales among video game consoles in 2014. Some have criticized the lack of meaningful software updates to the console, while others have praised its ability to play some games at higher resolutions than its primary counterpart, the Xbox One.

A widely cited performance benchmark was removed (1.843 teraflops). All reference to Edge magazine was vanished. The text was replaced with a new formulation that says the console only has "a slight edge over the competition". I immediately became suspicious because the whole thing looked like a stealth edit to remove unfavourable information.

The original version had the benefit of expression and concision, so why drastically change it and delete well publicized features like Remote Play?

My recommendation is to wait and let other edits have some input. And if something is badly wrong and needs tweaking, we can discuss it here first. — TPX 22:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@ThePowerofX: I appreciate the feedback. Let me address some of those concerns while we're waiting for other editors to weigh in. First of all, if you review featured articles, you will find that the tendency to exclude unnecessary citations in the lead is a common practice. Only in rare situations when the article's subject is highly-controversial should citations typically remain (WP:LEADCITE). So it may have looked like I was removing sourced information and replacing it with unsourced statements, but on the contrary, it is a typical process of cleaning up the lead as the article evolves towards the goal of achieving good and featured status. Until you reverted the changes, I was in the process of moving some of the removed content to the body of the article, which is evident in this edit. The next piece I was going to move was the excerpt regarding Edge (which by the way I noticed you recently did). In retrospect, I probably should have moved the content first before removing it from the lead, which I'll be sure to do in future edits. I honestly never expected it would be reverted entirely without at least a notice on my talk page or here, and certainly not within a mere half hour.

As for the other points you raised, I think it's important to keep in mind the true purpose of the lead introduction, which is a summary of the article's most important aspects (MOS:LEAD). It needs to introduce the topic in a fashion that appeals to the general public. Throwing in elements such as x86-64 and 1.843 teraflops are unnecessary and belong in the technical sections of the article. A non-technical reader gains nothing by their inclusion in the lead, especially when there's no comparison or context to what they mean. Also, the paragraph about the console's interactivity needs to be summarized, more so that it already is. There's no reason to list every single feature that pertains to the interactive nature of the console. My proposed change does exactly that. It narrows it down to the most recognizable features (there's wiggle room here of course).

ThePowerofX, I know you are a heavy contributor here in VG articles, so I respect your opinion. I can understand the knee-jerk reaction of reverting what appears to be a massive change. However, I feel that a closer inspection of the proposed lead changes will reveal that they are in fact an improvement over what was there before. I am certain that any kind of good or featured article review by another editor outside of the VG community would agree that there is a lot of unnecessary bloat in the introduction, as well as some points surrounding the console's reception that are missing. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The point about unnecessary citations is a good one. The one exception is the paragraph concerning Sony's own pronouncements, and those of independent game developers, regarding the capabilities of the system. These claims were challenged in the recent past, hence the carefully added footnotes. This is supported by WP:LEADCITE. But I agree that fewer citations are preferable. This is one area of agreement where we can rapidly move forward.

I remain puzzled by the note you left on my talk page, saying "the current lead is full of garbage and contains content that isn't even mentioned in the body of the article". Please understand that you cannot justify deleting material from the lede section because the information does not appear in the body of the article, then proceed to make the same error. The information you added regarding resolution differences, and how they might be perceived, was similarly nowhere to be found in the article body, which seems to undermine your explanation that this is partly what motivated you to make alterations in the first place.

I also disagree with the suggestion that "the paragraph about the console's interactivity needs to be summarized, more so that it already is" as there is "no reason to list every single feature that pertains to the interactive nature of the console." We don't come near to describing every single aspect of the system. The few we do make reference to are summarized because they fundamentally define the console and set it apart from what Sony has done before. Most importantly of all, these social features have received significant coverage by the mainstream press.

If it's widely accepted that our introduction is excessively long, we can make minor adjustments until everyone is happy, but at the present time I do not believe that size is a problem. In fact, PlayStation 4's lede section is smaller than most other 8th generation consoles and their forerunners:

373 words 2364 characters - Xbox 360

372 words 2414 characters - Xbox One

363 words 2208 characters - Wii

351 words 2158 characters - Wii U

315 words 1971 characters - PlayStation 4

244 words 1508 characters - PlayStation 3

The reception section is underdeveloped and requires more attention. Perhaps that should be our starting point if we wish to address the performance/resolution differences more thoroughly before summarising such viewpoints in the introduction. I have started collecting quality sources. — TPX 21:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that controversial statements in the lead should retain their references. Also, I'm glad we agree to work on reducing unnecessary citations. Where are we regarding x86-64 and 1.843 teraflops?

The "full of garbage" comment was a bit over the top, I admit. Part of the issue I had when I posted that was the timeliness of your reversion and the somewhat vague comment in your edit summary. I'm over that now and willing to move forward. In regards to "seems to undermine your explanation", I was in the process of updating the entire article through a series of edits. One such edit was going to be in the Reception section addressing that very point about higher resolutions. I think you'd agree that this has been widely reported in media dating back to pre-launch. I halted those edits after the changes to the lead were reverted to focus on having a discussion first. I'll reiterate that I made the mistake of not adding and moving content first to the body of the article before I made changes to the lead. I was "trigger-happy" I suppose. Despite the way the events unfolded, it's still a valid concern that content in the lead must summarize content in the body. I agree that addressing content in the body, especially the Reception section, would be the best place to focus our attention first.

Aside from some of the issues I addressed above, the phrasing/grammar in the lead also needs work, which was actually the main driving force behind my intentions to improve it. And regarding the length of the lead, we can approach that too when ready. Preferably trimming down to two or three paragraphs would be in accordance with WP:LEADLENGTH. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, to recap:

Para 1: Name of the console, launch date(s), and it's position in the gaming landscape

Para 3: Emphasis on social gameplay and how 'sharing' is an integral part of the new system

Para 4: A description of how PS4 interacts with other services and devices

Paragraph 2 we agree is problematic and needs immediate attention. There are two distinct elements here. Firstly, SCE's past development troubles are central to understanding their engineering choices. Adopting the familiar x86-64 instruction set found in most home computers is key to making their system more accessible (exactly the same transformation is described in our introduction to Xbox One). I'm not sure how to convey this information in entirely non technical terms, but we can try. Secondly, the reception section is undeveloped, particularly when compared to similar articles. This seems like a good place to describe the capabilities of Sony's system, notable performance differences, and what reliable sources say of them. We should start a new talk page section to help determine what general points to express. Afterward, we can select what elements should be represented in the lede. Paragraphs 3 and 4 could be merged together. I'm confident we can do this without losing essential information. — TPX 22:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick note that I don't believe we need to be completely non-technical. Your statement about the x86-64 instruction set is spot on clear, concise, and provides context. If we could add some form of that to the lead, I wouldn't see a problem with keeping x86-64 in there. My concern was with tossing around technical terms without any context. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A lot has been been written about this topic and, the truth is, we can cherry-pick sources that say the performance gap is small and we can handpick sources to say the gap is large. People who say the performance gap is "slight" appear to base their findings on a single metric. That standard of measurement is multi-platform titles with straightforward resolution differences. The vast majority of PlayStation 4 games run in full HD whereas a considerable number of Xbox One games do not. This divergence has been labelled "resolutiongate". One of the sources added by User:GoneIn60 in support of his proposed lede changes, saying the PS4 offers only a "slight edge" over the competition, is Forbes business magazine contributor Paul Tassi, who writes

The problem is that even the resolution difference is functionally irrelevant across PS4 and Xbox One [...] The difference between 1080p and 900p or even 720p on home consoles is not nearly as noticeable as it is on PC [...] the power difference is largely negligible

This is in stark contrast to an Edge magazine editorial which says

Multiple high-level game development sources have described the difference in performance between the consoles as "significant" and "obvious."

The two sources are not necessarily in conflict. Digital Foundry's Richard Leadbetter was one of the earliest people to argue that most third-party developers would use PS4's extra power in the most mundane way possible, with simple framerate and resolution improvements. External developers, he suggested, are not going to invest considerable time and resources exploiting one systems full power to the detriment of the other. Indeed, an almost identical point is raised by Edge magazine:

One source even suggested that enforcing parity across consoles could become a political issue between platform holders, developers and publishers. They said that it could damage perceptions of a cross platform title, not to mention Xbox One, if the PS4 version shipped with an obviously superior resolution and framerate; better to "castrate" the PS4 version and release near-identical games to avoid ruffling any feathers. This claim was later countered by a contact at a different studio. "It would be totally fine for us to make one version prettier without any political difficulties but it usually doesn't make financial sense," they said, "unless it’s a very simple tweak."

In their technical breakdown of both systems, ExtremeTech expressed the same point but in a different way:

In short, the PS4’s GPU is — on paper — 50% more powerful than the Xbox One. The Xbox One’s slightly higher GPU clock speed might ameliorate some of the difference, but really, the PS4’s 50% higher CU count is a serious advantage for the Sony camp. [...] I think the PS4 will always have the edge when it comes to raw graphics power, and thus higher output resolution and smoother frame rates. In reality, due to commercial restraints, I expect most cross-platform games will look virtually identical across the two consoles for their entire lifecycle. PS4 exclusives that take full advantage of the console’s superior hardware, though, such as masterpieces produced by Naughty Dog, will probably look significantly better than anything on the Xbox One.

In summation, quality sources who are familiar with the hardware describe PlayStation 4's extra power as "serious", "significant" and "obvious", but say this advantage won't always be fully apparent in third-party, cross-platform titles. I would like to know if editors agree with this line of reasoning, before trying to develop these points in article main space. I'm also open to hearing arguments to the contrary. — TPX 22:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Excellent job of compiling excerpts from several reliable sources on the subject. It is much appreciated. All are good candidates for inclusion. I would like to clarify that "slight" was one of the many word choices in my proposal that can be accepted, changed, or dropped altogether. Just saying that the PS4 has a performance advantage without describing the amount (e.g. dropping "slight") may very well end up being the least controversial choice. Regardless, I'm sure we won't have a problem reaching an agreement. Let's continue the process you started to improve the reception section, and then contemplate later the best way to summarize its contents in the lead section. I'm beginning to think this part of the lead is going to look very different from my original proposal!

We should include a variety of performance gap viewpoints in the reception section giving more weight to the predominant ones, much like we do in other topics such as film. Then the predominant ones will help us form the best wording in the lead. It would probably help to differentiate between the developer's perspective and that of the gamer or consumer (described by experts in the industry of course). Eagerly waiting to see how others feel about this. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ So how about this, pending flow and grammar fixes.

Speaking to Edge magazine, numerous game developers have described the performance difference between the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One as "significant" and "obvious". ExtremeTech says the PS4's graphical processing unit offers a "serious advantage" over the competition, and while many third-party game designers may use some of the additional power in a straightforward manner, to boost frame rate or output at a higher resolution, titles from Sony's own first-party studios that take full advantage of the hardware "will probably look significantly better than anything on the Xbox One."

This I believe is the dominant viewpoint. With regard to architecture, the two systems are remarkably similar (it really is striking when you consider neither competitor knew what the other was planning). But PS4's faster memory and GPU is said to offer Sony a significant advantage. It's not final, but it's a start. — TPX 21:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The "significant and obvious" article is outdated and not relevant anymore. The last year and a half has shown that games look exactly the same on both consoles and even that article states that the difference would probably be negligible on multiplats. I feel the article is old, and misrepresents the actual truth about the power of both consoles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.124.149 (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The raw power gap will never be "outdated", no matter what API/SDK improvements are made. The same point is underscored again. Multi-platform titles that share the same development assets will often appear the same, "but the real advantage will likely come from the Playstation 4’s first party developers." — TPX 20:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Correct, for first party games I don't dispute that. However I feel that something along the lines of "Multi-platform titles that share the same development assets will often appear the same" should be mentioned as well, as currently it seems to imply otherwise and might give people the wrong idea. I'm sure you could quote the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.124.149 (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ How about something like:

Numerous industry professionals have acknowledged the PlayStation 4's performance advantage over the Xbox One. Speaking to Edge magazine, numerous game developers have described the differences as "significant" and "obvious". ExtremeTech hypothesised that the PS4's graphical processing unit offers a "serious advantage" over the competition but noted that the advantages would likely only be noticeable in first-party games which "will probably look significantly better than anything on the Xbox One.". However, they expect third-party games to look "virtually identical" across the two consoles because the extra power would only be used to gain nearly imperceivable frame rate or resolution improvements, rather than making major enhancements to a single version of a multi-platform game.

I think this wording matches the overall sentiment of the sources. ChimpanzeeTalk 14:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"Hypothesised" is a little too uncertain. ExtremeTech come straight out and say PS4's GPU is more capable. I'm also not sure about "nearly imperceivable" resolution improvements. It depends on who you ask I suppose. Eurogamer says the difference is notable in their tech reviews. This is what I drafted last night, with some of your text worked in:

Numerous industry professionals have acknowledged the PlayStation 4's performance advantage over the Xbox One. Speaking to Edge magazine, multiple game developers have described the difference as "significant" and "obvious". ExtremeTech says the PS4's graphics processing unit offers a "serious advantage" over the competition, but due to the nature of cross-platform development, titles that share the same assets will appear identical. In other cases, designers may tap some of PS4's additional power in a straightforward manner, to boost frame rate or output at a higher resolution, whereas games from Sony's own first-party studios that take full advantage of the hardware "will probably look significantly better than anything on the Xbox One."

I think we're moving in the right direction. — TPX 17:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Multimedia features also requires updating in light of DLNA support announcment. Article currently reads "At present the PS4 cannot store media files onto its hard disk. This feature is being worked on along with DLNA support". — TPX 12:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

New PS4 CUH-1200 appears to use consistently slight over 80% of the power of older (original) version - this would be consistent with die shrink to 20nm - so keep an eye out for confirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.174.82 (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under the multimedia section it states that PS4 no longer has DLNA support which it now does. it was implemented shortly after the E3 event in the form of an application called 'Media Player' which allows users to stream videos, music and images fro a media server such as a PC etc. 86.45.251.152 (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

i read that offline backwards compatibility for playstation 1 and 2 is coming[edit]

i found it on some article though no timeline for when it will arrive was listed. please find that article for me and use it as a source.(it is too hot for me these days for me to do that kind of work.)84.213.45.196 (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

No amount of searching will help you with this. They've never confirmed such a thing. Sergecross73msg me 15:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Sony calls the PlayStation 4 "the world's most powerful console"[14] and, speaking to Edge magazine, numerous game developers described the performance difference between the PS4 and Xbox One as "significant" and "obvious".

a line such as this, placed in the 2nd paragraph, is a blatant and obvious bias statement. this has obviously been taken from the pre-release section and placed at the top of the page a persuasive device. considering it is from the pre-release secion, and the console has been released, this statement should definantly not be in the 2nd paragraph, as it was an unproven claim when it was made.

If you have a reliable source contradicting that which is already present, please present it. Otherwise, there is no reason why the statement should be removed. I have seen many reliable sources discussing the power of the PlayStation 4, but never one backing up your claim that it is "unproven", also I don't understand how it is biased. Sony's claim has been backed by numerous developers and a quick hardware comparison between it and its competitors even moreover backs up the statement already present in the article. Chambr (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)